I can't subscribe to the idea that 'good' or 'quality' is entirely subjective. Instead, I allow experts - people who can identify, understand and describe the nuances of a given thing - to define the criteria of quality. I won't entirely disregard the opinion of the masses, but I do believe, The masses, particularly in first impressions, can be entirely - objectively - wrong about quality....that the 'good' we ascribe is a subjective perception. I think your example of masses vs. experts having different views of whether something is 'good' or how good something is reinforces my point - that change itself is not inherently good or bad, it is the subjective evaluation of the change which makes one think the change is one thing or another. In your example, different groups of people may have differing views on how 'good' a wine is, but that is a subjective evaluation based on at least different criteria between the groups as to what constitutes 'good' (or 'quality' in your wording).
For the sake of clarity, lets take my wine example to an extreme, and put piss in a bottle. Slap a nice label on it, serve it in a fine establishment, or whatever else it might take to warp the perceptions of one of the "masses" and they're going to drink it and think, "mmm, good wine". Experts will not be fooled because they are too "attuned" to wine to have their perceptions easily warped.
You can argue that all that matters is the perception, and that if someone perceives piss as good wine, then, subjectively, it is good wine. But it's not good wine, it will never be good wine, in fact, it's not even wine - it's piss. Give the fooled person a bottle to take home, and later when he's not distracted, he'll eventually realize, "This isn't fine wine! OMG, I've been drinking piss!".
Often, change can also have its quality objectively defined. And quite often, people will react negatively to something new, even if it's good, because when it comes to things we're not experts on, our perceptions are easily fooled. One person starts a rumor about a new Myth patch claiming it makes dwarf bottles dud too often. The next person, overhearing this and worried it might be true, experiences a random, normal dud, and is convinced the patch is a bad change.
This can be argued every which way, and we both know, no matter what, you're not going to suddenly realize your perception of the quality of the inventory feature was wrong all along. I mean, what if someone doesn't even like wine? What if they like... milk. How good a wine is irrelevant to them, right? But that's not that point.
Should great wineries halt their efforts to advance the quality of wine because someone prefers milk? Or should they maybe try to make wine that also tasted like milk as a compromise to make everyone happy? Of course not. I'm sure you agree wineries should be allowed to pursue their art without worrying about people who don't even appreciate wine. And I'm sure you agree I should have been allowed to make Mazzarin's Demise the way I did without worrying about the people who don't like inventory.
BUT should the wineries start genetically altering cows to try and make all milk taste more like wine? That's exactly what a lot of people thought Project Magma was doing with Myth - changing their milk.
Lets be clear about this: Project Magma never, ever changed a single thing about Myth II 1.3. Not one digital bit was altered; 1.3 is still there on your Myth II CD, entirely unchanged.
What Project Magma changed was the community. The community changed by playing something new and different. You might not like the fact, but it's pointless blaming Project Magma for it. You may as well blame Bungie for being too successful with Halo, selling out and not making Myth 3, or Blizzard for luring a portion of the Myth community over to WoW, or even Intel for making faster chips that make more modern computer games possible.
And here's my point: the change initiated by Project Magma was an objectively good one because it sparked and prolonged interest in an otherwise dying game. It evolved the game and that evolution far outweighed the benefits of sticking with 1.3. Re-reading this thread made me realize that there may have been even more evolution if it hadn't been for the warped perceptions some people had about the patches and all the time they made the programmers waste. And by the way, the most common usage of the word evolution is to mean positive progress.
Second, while I don’t necessarily totally disagree with any of your points, I think you give them far too much weight. 
